This is a discussion of ethics of science

Last Thursday, Anne Bauer, General reporter for the "Echos", did not went hand in its review of the last book of Claude Allègre, "Climate fraud". "The book more like a pamphlet, where bad faith the dispute to the simplicity, to the work of a man of science." The theory of global warming has so many supporters, and one such authority, that it does not understand why Anne Bauer found duty rise so quickly to the niche. The next day, same Claude Allègre was entitled to the same book, une page full of "world". "The cent-faults of Claude Allègre", where the journalist, Stéphane Foucart, seeks to disqualify it as scientific authority. "He commits errors." He is therefore the impostor. "Not a word on the thesis. Definitely, this is an area, climate, where it loses its neutrality for the benefit of his militant beliefs.

This debate is very important. This is a discussion of ethics of science. It is a political debate where the operation of the power reflected in our democracies. This is a debate which should not be avoided. The courage of Claude Allègre is twofold. It is first to express its concerns about a thesis - warming (that he does not dispute) is mainly due to CO2 emissions from human activities (what he disputes). A thesis in France, has been elevated to the rank of unquestionable dogma, placing any sceptic in situation of excommunication. Rather than to remain silent, that consider the "climatosceptiques", now more prudent Claude Allègre explains why it may be doubted a doctrine whose construction practically has been the subject of discussion in France, with the exception of the book devoted to the "models of the future" under the direction of Amy Dahan Dalmedico (La Découverte, 2007).

Inconvenient in the book of Claude Allègre is not as long as it expresses his doubts about the official theory, but that he leads, somewhat like a detective, a kind survey to understand how a questionable assumption could become obvious almost worldwide indisputable. Because the concept of "global warming" is not obvious. It does not of itself. It does not the perception, despite what want to believe the images of the films of Al Gore or Yann Arthus-Bertrand. It relies on a complex that precarious intellectual construction, where the observations yield to modelling that schematize the data operating, in fact, selections that Claude Allègre dispute. From the scientific point of view, the theory of Claude Allègre is surprising given so much importance to mathematical models even though they seem unable to integrate observations. Criticism is important, and in particular the methods of the International Forum of expertise, the IPCC, which, as shown in the recent controversy seems more attached to remember which supports the "consensus" to seek to balance the relative probabilities of scenarios in the presence.

The work of Claude Allègre shows that the theory of global warming produced by human activity assumes any device in both scientific and political that it dismounts in its different components. It does nothing other than what a Michel Foucault could do to explain other proposals that became us familiar as "madness is a mental illness" or "sexuality is fundamentally repressed in our societies." It debunks the myth of climate science that would be pure and disinterested as the green are on their side for GMOs and other technologies.

This does explain both of intolerance that insofar as the standard thesis on warming organizes identities (that of those whose fate is now linked to its truth), (sustainable development and energy choices) economic interests and political choices (the current French political consensus has to feed). It is no longer, it should no longer go back. With the risk that one adopts policies which may be as expensive as ineffective.

The book of Claude Allègre is the question of science reports and policy today. In the heart of the theme "climate change", there is knowledge-power reports. In our societies, science is taken in political and economic issues where the learned, become expert, is likely to abandon the principles of ethics his becoming counsel for a thesis that the facts must, year poorly, corroborate. By a strange reversal, science is no longer just disappoint the prejudices which manufactures opinions. Person has nothing to gain.